Lawyer: Hedge Funds Must Heed Foreign Corrupt Practices Act | FINalternatives

What is the Foreign Corrupt Practices act and why should you be concerned about it?  Matthew Reinhard of the Washington, D.C.-based law firm Miller & Chevalier, says FCPA penalties have increased “exponentially” over the past decade and could pose a significant economic risk to investment managers. Reinhard would know—he focuses his practice on white collar crime, internal investigations and complex civil litigation and has conducted internal investigations into allegations of FCPA violations. He spoke to FINalternatives’ recently about the implications of the FCPA for private equity and hedge fund managers.

via Lawyer: Hedge Funds Must Heed Foreign Corrupt Practices Act | FINalternatives.

A Triumvirate of FCPA Resources | Thomas Fox – JDSupra

The three articles are: (1) “Complying With the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: A Practical Primer”, authored by the University of Chicago Law School’s Corporate Lab, co-sponsored by Microsoft, and published by the ABA Global Anti-Corruption Task Force; (2) “The IP Practitioner’s ‘Cheat Sheet’ to the FCPA and Travel Act: Introducing the IP FCPA Decision Tree”, authored by Doug Sawyer and T. Markus Funk and published in the BNA Bloomberg Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal; and (3) “Breaking Down the FCPA, Travel Act, and UK Bribery Act”, by T. Markus Funk, published in BNA Bloomberg White Collar Crime Report.

via A Triumvirate of FCPA Resources | Thomas Fox – JDSupra.

Foreign Bribery Defendants May Fight More as Cases Falter – Businessweek (Edvard Pettersson)

Executives facing trial in U.S. courts over accusations of bribing foreign officials may be encouraged to fight charges as prosecutors regroup after two courtroom setbacks and await a verdict in their largest overseas corruption probe targeting individuals.

One of two cases hailed by the government as milestones in its enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act was dismissed last year by a judge who said the jury verdict convicting two men at an electricity tower company of bribing Mexican officials was tainted by prosecutor misconduct in “a sloppy, incomplete and notably over-zealous investigation.”

In the first prosecution under the FCPA based on a sting operation, a judge declared a mistrial for four of 22 defendants accused of participating in a fake $15 million weapons deal involving Gabon. A separate trial is under way for a second group of defendants.

The 2011 outcomes will make individual defendants in FCPA cases more confident in contesting charges, in particular because they may face long prison terms under the plea deals the Justice Department offers, even as corporations continue to self-report and settle, said Philip Urofsky, a former FCPA prosecutor who now defends cases at Shearman & Sterling LLP.

“If a defendant is able to finance a significant defense, they can really put the government to the test,” Urofsky said in a phone interview.

via Foreign Bribery Defendants May Fight More as Cases Falter – Businessweek.

Under FCPA, Former Siemens Executives Charged with ‘Stunning’ Bribes of Argentine Officials | National Law Journal

The biggest-ever Foreign Corrupt Practices Act case lives on with the announcement Dec. 13 that eight former executives and agents of Siemens AG have been charged with bribing officials in Argentina to get a $1 billion government contract.

The indictment comes three years after the German company paid a record $800 million to settle related FCPA charges brought by the Justice Department and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the company paid another $800 million to settle charges in Germany).

Among the individual Siemens executives facing civil and criminal charges is Uriel Sharef, a former member of Siemen’s central executive committee. It’s the first time a board member of a global Fortune 50 company has been charged with a FCPA violation, according to DOJ Criminal Division head Lanny Breuer, who described the scheme as “corruption on an absolutely stunning scale.”

According to the DOJ and SEC, the Siemens executives committed to pay $100 million in bribes to win a $1 billion contract to make national identity cards for the government of Argentina. The executives allegedly falsified documents including fake invoices and consulting contracts to hide the $60 million in bribes that the company actually paid out.

via Under FCPA, Former Siemens Executives Charged with ‘Stunning’ Bribes of Argentine Officials.

Government Misconduct in FCPA Prosecution May Impact Other Cases | National Law Journal

A federal judge’s dismissal of convictions in a high-profile Foreign Corrupt Practices Act case because of prosecutorial misconduct has prompted a defense attorney in a related prosecution to challenge the government’s case against his client.

U.S. District Judge Howard Matz in Los Angeles on Dec. 1 threw out the convictions of Lindsey Manufacturing Co. and two of its senior executives on charges that they paid an intermediary to bribe two officials of a Mexican utility in violation of the FCPA. Matz cited numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct, including an FBI agent’s false statements to the grand jury and false information in affidavits submitted for search and seizure warrants.

via Government Misconduct in FCPA Prosecution May Impact Other Cases.

Reform the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act | National Law Journal

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is lobbying Congress to amend the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to lessen the financial burden on U.S. companies doing business in foreign countries. That burden has cost U.S. companies upwards of a trillion dollars and has made our nation less competitive in the world marketplace. Unfortunately, the most important amendment suggested by the Chamber is likely to make the problem worse. There is a better and simpler solution.

The FCPA is our nation’s effort to prevent companies from bribing government officials to secure business in a foreign country. Companies found guilty of paying bribes, or of failing to accurately describe the bribes in their financial records, have had to pay billions of dollars in fines and have faced the possibility of debarment from government contracts. Why so much money? Under U.S. law, companies are responsible for the acts of their employees even if management is unaware of the employee’s conduct. A typical scenario involves a company executive hiring a foreign consultant to help negotiate a contract with a particular ministry for the sale of a product or service. Unknown to management, the consultant’s fee includes a bribe to a foreign official.

Although intended to level the playing field, the FCPA has actually made it harder for U.S. companies to compete in the marketplace. Money that a company could have used to hire employees, build plants and market its products has been diverted to efforts to show that any illegal conduct was the act of a rogue employee.

If the bribe is uncovered, the company has no defense to criminal liability. Even though the bribe was not authorized by management, no one in management was aware of the bribe and the bribe was specifically against company policy, the company is criminally responsible. The only thing the company can do is try to convince the government not to charge it with a crime.

How does a company do this? Primarily by showing the U.S. Department of Justice that the company had a compliance program designed to prevent such conduct. Companies must evaluate their business environment to identify areas where unlawful conduct might occur. Such an evaluation must include an examination of the business culture of the foreign nation and even a boots-on-the-ground investigation of the company’s foreign partners or intermediaries. Companies must promulgate policies that detail permitted and prohibited practices, and employees must receive regular training on permitted practices and the penalty for noncompliance.

via Reform the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

SEC’s Sought-After Powers May Not Affect FCPA – Corruption Currents – WSJ

New powers sought by the Securities and Exchange Commission seem likely to have a limited effect on the agency’s enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

As the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday, SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro is seeking to impose much larger penalties on financial firms and individuals that commit fraud, after U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff spurned a $285 million settlement between the SEC and Citigroup. That pact addressed civil-fraud charges that the New York company failed to disclose to investors its role in selecting investments in a $1 billion mortgage-bond deal that it was simultaneously betting would fail.

In a letter sent to senators late Monday, Schapiro asked Congress to pursue legislation that changes the legal formulas used by the agency to calculate penalties. Her proposals would allow the SEC to impose fines up to nine times greater than the maximum currently allowed by U.S. law. But the new formula wouldn’t apply to the primary tool used by the SEC in FCPA enforcement: disgorgement of profits.

Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the SEC is authorized to pursue ill-gotten gains obtained through violation of federal securities law, a penalty called disgorgement. Disgorgement is a so-called “equitable remedy,” meaning the SEC is only allowed to recover the approximate amount earned from the crimes. Disgorgement is not intended to be punitive, but acts as a deterrent to illegal profit (See here for a good explanation).

The SEC has increasingly relied on disgorgement in its ramped-up enforcement of the FCPA. In April, Johnson & Johnson disgorged $48.6 million in profits including  prejudgment interest to settle allegations that it violated the FCPA. The drug maker also paid a $21.4 million criminal penalty to the Department of Justice as part of a coordinated settlement.

While the SEC can and does levy civil fines for FCPA violations, it usually chooses disgorgement from its toolbox of civil penalties. Danforth Newcomb, counsel at Shearman & Sterling LLP, said that reliance stemmed, in part, from increased coordination with the Justice Department and foreign law enforcement authorities on FCPA settlement proceedings.

via SEC’s Sought-After Powers May Not Affect FCPA – Corruption Currents – WSJ.

Does the Mighty FCPA Need Reining in? – Law Blog – WSJ

After five years and billions of dollars in penalties, enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act shows no signs of cooling. But there are many in Corporate America that think the U.S. government is stretching the anti-bribery law in ways that are hurting U.S. business.

In this story in today’s Journal, we look at a widespread debate over how the legislation is enforced, spurred in large part the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s efforts to amend the 1977 law.

Justice Department officials reject the need for legislation changes to the FCPA and say strong enforcement of the law, which reaches foreign and U.S. companies, helps create a level playing field in business transactions by eliminating corruption from the equation. But the Chamber and lawyers who support amending the FCPA say there is still substantial confusion over what is legal and what isn’t.

The law bars companies from paying bribes to foreign officials, but the Chamber wants clarity on whether employees of companies with state ownership or control behind them qualify as such. The Justice Department has taken an expansive view, arguing, for instance, that virtually every employee a pharmaceutical company encounters in a state-run health-care system could be considered a foreign official.

via Does the Mighty FCPA Need Reining in? – Law Blog – WSJ.

Why FCPA Prosecution Risk Has Become Personal

There was a time when the U.S. Department of Justice primarily focused its attention on prosecuting companies responsible for bribing foreign officials. Critics of this practice argued that the resulting fines had become just another cost of doing business. So, about eight years ago, the DoJ announced a new strategy of targeting corporate officers and directors for criminal prosecution under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in order to more significantly deter global corporations from engaging in corrupt practices.

If the number of convictions is any indication, the strategy may be paying off: since 2005, dozens of corporate executives have been convicted of violating the FCPA, paid hefty fines from their personal assets, and spent years in prison. (Of course, companies are still the subject of federal agencies’ wrath: the most recent case will result in Pfizer paying more than $60 million to settle FCPA charges, according to the Wall Street Journal.)

Last month, law firm Chadbourne & Parke released a study of the 61 FCPA prosecutions involving individual defendants over the past six years. A surprising number, 35%, of the defendants were the president, chief executive officer, or chief operating officer of their firm. In all, 53 of the individuals charged with violating the FCPA during this period were senior officers — a staggering 87% of all defendants.

These findings should be of concern to corporate executives worldwide. Though the U.K. Bribery Act — which went into effect earlier this year — has captured headlines as a force to be reckoned with, in many ways, the 33-year-old FCPA still reigns supreme in its threat to CEOs and CFOs who do business in the United States.

To understand the potential magnitude, one need look no further than the recent News of the World phone-hacking scandal that has consumed Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp. for much of the year. The gravest threat of criminal prosecution facing the Murdochs and other senior executives of News Corp. might come not from British authorities, who would directly oversee the publication, but from the FCPA.

via Why FCPA Prosecution Risk Has Become Personal.

Why FCPA Prosecution Risk Has Become Personal | CFO.com

There was a time when the U.S. Department of Justice primarily focused its attention on prosecuting companies responsible for bribing foreign officials. Critics of this practice argued that the resulting fines had become just another cost of doing business. So, about eight years ago, the DoJ announced a new strategy of targeting corporate officers and directors for criminal prosecution under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in order to more significantly deter global corporations from engaging in corrupt practices.

If the number of convictions is any indication, the strategy may be paying off: since 2005, dozens of corporate executives have been convicted of violating the FCPA, paid hefty fines from their personal assets, and spent years in prison. (Of course, companies are still the subject of federal agencies’ wrath: the most recent case will result in Pfizer paying more than $60 million to settle FCPA charges, according to the Wall Street Journal.)

Last month, law firm Chadbourne & Parke released a study of the 61 FCPA prosecutions involving individual defendants over the past six years. A surprising number, 35%, of the defendants were the president, chief executive officer, or chief operating officer of their firm. In all, 53 of the individuals charged with violating the FCPA during this period were senior officers — a staggering 87% of all defendants.

These findings should be of concern to corporate executives worldwide. Though the U.K. Bribery Act — which went into effect earlier this year — has captured headlines as a force to be reckoned with, in many ways, the 33-year-old FCPA still reigns supreme in its threat to CEOs and CFOs who do business in the United States.

To understand the potential magnitude, one need look no further than the recent News of the World phone-hacking scandal that has consumed Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp. for much of the year. The gravest threat of criminal prosecution facing the Murdochs and other senior executives of News Corp. might come not from British authorities, who would directly oversee the publication, but from the FCPA.

via Why FCPA Prosecution Risk Has Become Personal.